Non-Consensual Consent: The Performance of Choice in a Coercive World

Consider the following scenario: You're sitting in a job interview for a position you desperately need to pay rent. The interviewer asks, "Why are you passionate about working in insurance claims processing?" Despite feeling nothing resembling passion, you fabricate enthusiasm, carefully crafting a narrative about your deep interest in risk assessment and customer service.

This exchange represents ironic discourse—both you and the interviewer recognize the fabrication, yet both participate in maintaining it. Neither acknowledges the obvious truth: you need money to survive, they need labor to profit, and the enthusiasm narrative is merely ceremonial cover for this basic transaction.

This ritual exemplifies non-consensual consent—a pervasive societal mechanism forcing individuals to perform consent while removing meaningful alternatives.

The Two-Layered System

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they." — Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Non-consensual consent (NCN) is the inverse of "consensual non-consent" (CNC)—a concept most familiar from BDSM and power exchange relationships. CNC begins with an authentic moment of consent—typically formalized through explicit negotiation and boundaries—followed by a mutually desired performance of non-consent. The foundation rests on genuine choice, where participants voluntarily surrender control within pre-defined parameters, ensuring safety and trust while maintaining the illusion of coercion.

In consensual non-consent: You actually have freedom but voluntarily surrender it while pretending you don't have choice. The submissive partner genuinely chooses to participate in a scenario where they act as though they have no choice.

In non-consensual consent: You don't have freedom but must pretend you do have it. You're forced to perform the theater of choice while having no meaningful alternatives.

NCN appears whenever structures require individuals to maintain the fiction of choice while eliminating meaningful alternatives. The insidiousness lies not merely in the lack of options, but in the mandatory performance of having chosen freely.

"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." — Jean-Paul Sartre

But what happens when what's been done to you requires pretending nothing was done to you at all?

The Sex work Paradox: The Perfect Inversion

Perhaps the clearest illustration of non-consensual consent comes through comparing two superficially similar but fundamentally opposite sexual scenarios: higher-end sex work versus consensual non-consent (CNC) in BDSM.

In sex work:

• What must be pretended: Desire for the client, enjoyment of the interaction, having freely chosen the profession

• The reality: Often driven by economic necessity or lack of alternatives

• The performance element: Often having to perform enthusiasm and consent to a convincing degree

In consensual non-consent:

• What is pretended: Lack of choice, being forced or coerced

• The reality: Carefully negotiated boundaries, explicit prior consent, ongoing ability to stop the interaction

• The performance element: Acting as though one has no choice while actually retaining complete control

The sex work scenario inverts CNC completely. Though both involve sexual acts, in sex work, someone who doesn't truly consent must pretend they do consent to avoid suffering (economic hardship). In CNC, someone who fully consents pretends they don't consent to gain pleasure.

What's particularly interesting is that between these scenarios, the one that appears more violent on the surface (CNC with its simulated force) actually contains more genuine consent than the scenario that appears consensual (sex work with its performed enthusiasm). This inversion reveals how deeply appearances of consent can diverge from its reality.

It's worth noting that non-consensual consent exists on a spectrum of constraints. Some might argue that sex work still offers alternatives—work longer hours at a minimum wage job, seek family support, or pursue education—while someone being sexually assaulted has no alternatives whatsoever. This is technically true, but misses the central point: NCN is about the quality and realism of available alternatives. In consensual non-consent, the alternative is simply to stop the scenario with a safe word. In sex work, alternatives often mean significant material suffering, homelessness, or hunger. With governments, realistic alternatives to compliance are essentially non-existent for most people. The presence of theoretical alternatives doesn't negate coercion when all realistic options involve severe suffering. What makes NCN insidious is precisely this gap between theoretical choice and practical constraint, combined with the demand to perform as if unconstrained.

Manufactured Choices: The Toddler Technique

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." — Noam Chomsky

Parents frequently deploy what might be called the "toddler choice technique" when dealing with children:

"Do you want to eat your broccoli first or your carrots first?"

"Would you like to put on the blue pajamas or the red pajamas?"

"Should we brush your teeth before or after your bath?"

These questions create the appearance of agency while disguising the fundamental non-negotiability of the underlying demand. The child must eat vegetables, wear pajamas, and complete hygiene tasks—the only "choice" exists within parameters that don't challenge the parent's authority.

This same structure appears throughout adult society. We're offered choices between insurance plans but not whether to have insurance, between political candidates but not whether to be governed, between employers but not whether to work. The manufactured choices distract from the absence of consent regarding the underlying requirement.

The Theater of False Agency

Non-consensual consent manifests in multiple domains, each requiring its own performance of fictional agency:

Economic Participation

The modern job market epitomizes this concept.

What you must pretend: That you've chosen your job freely, that you're passionate about the work, and that you're expressing genuine excitement about contributing to the company's mission.

The reality: Economic systems leave most people with no viable alternative to employment. The threat of homelessness, hunger, and social ostracism coerces participation. The "choice" between working at Company A vs. Company B disguises the non-optional nature of work itself. A candidate who openly admits they are only working to survive rather than from passion for the role will likely be rejected, confirming that the performance of enthusiasm is mandatory, not optional.

Inherited Relationships

Children exist in perhaps the most complete state of non-consensual consent.

What children must pretend: That they respect their parents' authority, feel gratitude for their upbringing, and accept family dynamics they had no role in creating.

The reality: Children neither choose their parents nor the power dynamics governing their formative years. They have no meaningful alternative to parental authority regardless of its quality or character.

The family unit operates on the premise that children should be grateful for conditions they never agreed to. We seldom acknowledge that the parent-child relationship represents authority imposed without consent, instead cloaking it in sentimentality to obscure its fundamental non-consensuality. When a child resists, whether by questioning parental decisions, refusing imposed obligations, or expressing discontent with their circumstances, they are often met with coercion—ranging from emotional manipulation to direct punishment.

A child who refuses to comply with school attendance, chores, or cultural expectations is not given the option to opt out; instead, they are corrected, disciplined, or labeled as defiant, reinforcing the illusion that their participation is voluntary when, in reality, it is enforced. Even compliance is not enough, as children are often expected to display enthusiasm and gratitude for their imposed conditions. Failing to do so can lead to further coercion, with the child being accused of ingratitude, emotional coldness, or even psychological dysfunction, further entrenching the expectation of not just obedience, but performative consent.

Social Contracts

What citizens must pretend: That they've consented to the laws, borders, and governance structures of their society, that they freely participate in the political order, and—perhaps most tellingly—that they feel genuine patriotic love for their nation.

The reality: Citizens never signed social contracts. They're bound by rules preceding their birth with no meaningful opportunity to reject these arrangements, yet are still expected to perform enthusiastic loyalty to countries they never chose. This patriotic performance requires citizens to express pride in arbitrary geographic boundaries, celebrate national symbols, and in many cases, be willing to die defending a political entity they had no role in selecting. Those who refuse to participate in patriotic rituals—standing for anthems, reciting pledges, displaying flags—often face social ostracism, professional consequences, or accusations of moral failing. The more authoritarian the regime, the more elaborate and mandatory the performance of patriotic love becomes, revealing how essential this fiction is to maintaining state power.

The contrast with consensual non-consent is particularly stark here. In a CNC dynamic, participants explicitly negotiate and sometimes even sign actual contracts delineating boundaries, safe words, and consent parameters before surrendering control. These agreements are sometimes formalized on paper, but more commonly exist as verbal understandings built on trust and ongoing communication. A submissive might sign a document saying, "I consent to the following restrictions..." and then roleplay having no choice. The social contract, meanwhile, is thrust upon us without negotiation, yet we must perform as though we volunteered for its terms.

When someone attempts to actually withhold consent—by refusing taxation or rejecting authority—the system reveals its true nature through coercion. The "choice" to participate was always illusory, yet maintaining the pretense of voluntarism remains essential to the system's legitimacy.

The Original Non-Consent: Existence Without Permission

Perhaps the most fundamental form of non-consensual consent is existence itself. A common counterargument to these observations is: "If you don't work, you force others to sustain you. How is that fair?" This objection obscures a crucial fact: no one consents to being born.

Certainly, humanity's continuation requires bringing new people into existence without their prior consent—there is simply no alternative. And many people genuinely experience life as a profound gift, finding joy, meaning, and fulfillment in their existence. This reality, however, doesn't negate another: a significant proportion of people—particularly those born into poverty, abuse, or chronic illness—experience life predominantly as suffering.

Yet even with these individuals, society maintains the fiction that participation is fully consensual rather than coerced. We demand they perform gratitude for an existence they never requested and may find painful. This primary non-consensuality is systematically obscured by framing life as an unambiguous gift rather than an imposed state with both benefits and burdens.

The pattern becomes even clearer when we consider how society handles those who wish to exit. Even the "die" option—the final alternative to participation—is often forcibly removed through suicide prevention measures, involuntary psychiatric holds, and moral condemnation. As I explored in Death vs. Suffering: The Endurist-Serenist Divide, institutions overwhelmingly enforce continued existence regardless of individual preference or suffering level.

We're first brought into existence without consent, then required to pretend we've freely chosen the subsequent framework of obligations, while simultaneously being denied the option to opt out. The options presented after birth—comply, suffer, or (attempt to) die—are portrayed as free choices rather than coercive ultimatums following an initial non-consensual act.

The necessity of reproduction for humanity's continuation may justify bringing people into existence without consent, but it doesn't justify lying about what we've done. Honesty would require acknowledging the potential harm of forced existence and stopping the pretense that subsequent participation is fully voluntary. This pattern of imposed existence followed by demanded gratitude forms the template for all subsequent systems of non-consensual consent.

Recognizing existence as non-consensual would transform our approach to those who struggle. The current narrative enforces a cruel paradox: "You have been given a gift by being born, you should be grateful, and if you don't thrive, it's your fault for not working hard enough." This framing conveniently obscures systemic inequalities, luck's enormous role in outcomes, and the reality that many people are born with traits or into circumstances that make flourishing nearly impossible. A more honest perspective acknowledges that people are brought into existence without consent and coerced to participate in ways that often serve others' interests. This truth creates a moral obligation: if society has a vested interest in people's existence and demands their participation, it bears responsibility toward them—especially those who cannot meet its demands despite genuine effort. When we stop pretending that everyone freely consented to the game and its rules, compassion rather than judgment becomes the appropriate response to suffering.

Psychological Responses: The Gervais Principle Perspective

How do humans navigate these contradictions? Venkatesh Rao's Gervais Principle offers a useful framework. While originally discussing the attitude toward the fiction that the company and the employee are aligned, the same pattern applies to the fiction that one is not being coerced.

The Clueless

The Clueless internalize the fiction so completely they no longer perceive the contradiction. They genuinely believe they chose freely within systems that eliminated meaningful alternatives. This psychological adaptation—convincing oneself that constraint is choice—mitigates cognitive dissonance while reinforcing existing power structures.

For these individuals, challenging the voluntariness of their participation threatens core identity. The possibility that their "choices" resulted from coercion rather than agency becomes existentially threatening, triggering defensive responses when confronted.

Example: Consider Winston Smith at the beginning of Orwell's 1984 – he starts by accepting the Party's version of reality, believing in the legitimacy of the system.

The Sociopaths

Sociopaths recognize the charade but participate strategically. They understand that while the consent is fictional, the consequences of refusing to perform it are real. These individuals maintain internal awareness of their constrained circumstances while externally enacting the required rituals of voluntary participation.

This bifurcation between internal understanding and external performance creates its own psychological strain. Maintaining prolonged dissonance between one's actions and beliefs exacts cognitive costs, yet many deem these costs preferable to the material consequences of non-participation.

Example: Like the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, who fully understands that religious authority is built on illusion rather than genuine consent, yet maintains the system because he believes people need the comforting fiction.

The Losers

Losers recognize the non-consensual nature of systems but fail to successfully perform the required consent theater. They might openly question mandatory participation, refuse to express enthusiasm for their subjugation, or simply perform consent poorly. Their failure to convincingly play their role often results in material disadvantages, social rejection, or institutional punishment.

Example: Similar to Randle McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, who fails to successfully perform the required submission to authority, leading to institutional punishment.

Institutional Enforcement

Society enforces non-consensual consent through both explicit and implicit mechanisms:

Rhetoric of Freedom

Systems most demanding performance of consent typically employ the loudest rhetoric about freedom. Corporate environments celebrate "entrepreneurial spirit" while punishing deviation from rigid behavioral norms. Nations with strict conformity requirements often feature "liberty" prominently in their propaganda.

The United States—branded as "the land of the free"—provides a great example. Despite this rhetoric, Americans cannot:

• Collect rainwater in certain states

• Grow specific plants in their gardens

• Build small homes that don't meet minimum size requirements

• Access their own medical data without permission

• Modify digital devices they've purchased

• Work without government ID numbers

  

  An NCN contract

It should be noted that the U.S. is not unique in this regard, nor is it the worst offender; similar and often more severe constraints exist in many other nations.

This linguistic inversion—using the language of choice to disguise its absence—confuses resistance and critique. Those identifying the contradiction can be accused of rejecting freedom itself rather than exposing its absence.

Punishment of Non-Performance

The consequences for failing to perform consent reveal the coercive underpinnings of these systems. The citizen questioning the legitimacy of agreements they never made risks legal sanctions. The child refusing to perform gratitude toward parents receives diagnosis and correction.

These punishments expose the fundamental dishonesty: if the consent were genuine, refusing to perform it would require no punishment. The severity of consequences for failing to maintain the fiction directly correlates with how essential the fiction is to maintaining power asymmetries.

Different systems enforce non-consensual consent with varying levels of brutality. In North Korea, failing to perform enthusiasm for the regime can result in imprisonment or execution. In Western corporate environments, the punishment might be limited to termination or social ostracism. Yet both systems require performance of consent, differing only in the severity of consequences for non-performance.

Collective Enforcement and Preference Falsification

The system's perpetuation requires not just institutional but peer enforcement. Political scientist Timur Kuran calls this process "preference falsification"—a collective arrangement where everyone misrepresents their true preferences or beliefs to align with perceived social requirements.

Those who refuse to perform consent face not only formal sanctions but social ostracism. Colleagues may resent the worker who acknowledges working solely for compensation rather than passion. Community members may shun the individual who questions social arrangements others pretend to have chosen.

This societal performance becomes self-reinforcing: as more people falsify their preferences publicly, the perceived social consensus strengthens, making it costlier for others to express dissent. The performance of consent becomes so normalized that its absurdity disappears from conscious awareness. When an interviewer asks why you're passionate about data entry and you respond with fabricated enthusiasm, neither party typically acknowledges the inherent irony.

Everyday conversations systematically avoid recognizing fundamental non-consensuality. Mentioning to a stranger, "Isn't it strange we have to follow laws we never agreed to?" or asking a child, "How do you feel about being forced to attend school without your consent?" is a violation of social norms.

This distributed enforcement mechanism ensures that even without direct institutional coercion, the fiction maintains itself through social pressure. What begins as external performance gradually becomes internalized belief for many.

When the Curtain Falls: System Failures

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." — Frank Zappa

Occasionally, the mask of consensuality slips, revealing the underlying coercion. Economic crises, natural disasters, and social upheavals often expose the non-consensual foundation of systems that previously maintained the appearance of voluntary participation.

During financial collapses, the fiction that employment is based on choice rather than coercion becomes harder for the middle and upper classes to maintain. While those living paycheck to paycheck always see the coercion clearly, economic crises strip away the comfortable illusion for those who usually have enough privilege to pretend they have meaningful options. When governments deploy military forces against their own populations during protests, the pretense that citizens consent to governance becomes tenuous. These moments of system failure briefly illuminate the non-consensual foundations of arrangements that normally disguise themselves as voluntary for those who can afford the illusion.

The Language of Disguise

Non-consensual consent maintains itself partly through euphemistic language that disguises coercion as choice. This linguistic sleight-of-hand transforms mandatory participation into apparent voluntarism:

• "Respect authority" (be obedient to power without question, as in the biblical commandment to "honor thy father and mother" - which in practice often means unquestioning obedience rather than genuine respect)

• "Civic duty" (compulsory participation framed as virtue)

• "Career opportunity" (permission to exchange labor for survival)

• "Right to work" (elimination of worker protections)

These terms encode non-consensual requirements as neutral or positive choices. The language itself performs a dual function: it both disguises the coercion and provides a script for the required performance of consent.

Power and Participation

Who benefits from non-consensual consent? Typically, those with greater power in asymmetric relationships:

• Employers benefit when employees pretend to work from passion rather than necessity

• Governments benefit when citizens act as though they voluntarily endorsed systems they inherited

• Parents benefit when children perform gratitude for arrangements they never chose

The common thread is that performance of consent legitimizes power imbalances that might otherwise face scrutiny or resistance. By maintaining the fiction that subordinated parties chose their position voluntarily, those with power avoid confronting the ethical questions their advantage might otherwise raise.

This explains why challenges to non-consensual consent often trigger disproportionate backlash. When someone refuses to perform the required fiction, they threaten not just a specific interaction but the legitimizing myths protecting entire systems of power.

Glimpses of Genuine Consent

While non-consensual consent dominates many social structures, genuine consent does occasionally emerge. These instances deserve recognition not just as exceptions but as demonstrations that alternatives are possible:

Volunteering: In contrast to coerced participation, volunteering often represents a genuine form of consent. Individuals choose to offer their time and effort freely, without economic necessity or social coercion forcing their hand. While social pressures may sometimes influence participation, the ability to walk away without material consequence distinguishes volunteering from systems requiring performative consent.

Certain Creative Collaborations: Open-source software communities, artistic collectives, and other collaborative creative endeavors sometimes achieve genuine consent structures where participation is truly voluntary and governance evolves through explicit agreement rather than imposed rules.

Authentic Intimate Relationships: At their best, healthy romantic partnerships involve ongoing negotiation, mutual accommodation, and the genuine ability to renegotiate or exit. The contrast with non-consensual relationships highlights what real consent might look like at larger scales.

These examples remain marginal due to Molochian Dynamics—as you can get more productivity via coercion. But their existence proves that non-consensual consent is not an inevitable condition of human organization.

Some Closing Thoughts

Non-consensual consent perpetuates through a fundamental dishonesty—not just with others but with ourselves. By participating in fictions of choice where none meaningfully exists, we become complicit in obscuring the very power structures that constrain us.

Breaking this cycle requires first acknowledging it. When we recognize the performance of consent as a coerced act rather than a voluntary one, we create space to question whether the underlying arrangements merit our actual consent—and what genuine alternatives might look like.

Acknowledging non-consensual consent doesn't mean we can easily replace these systems. Practical constraints exist—humanity requires reproduction, economies need labor, societies need structure. However, recognizing the moral problem creates space for incremental improvements even when wholesale transformation isn't feasible. By denying coercion exists, we prevent ourselves from addressing even solvable issues. If we admit people exist without consent, for example, we might at least provide humane exit options. If we acknowledge coerced participation in economic systems, we might create stronger safety nets. Society effectively places bets on human lives—creating many in hopes some will thrive—then blames those who don't succeed rather than accepting responsibility for the non-consensual gamble it made. Honesty about these dynamics won't immediately transform our systems, but it challenges the cruelest aspects of our current arrangements: forcing people into existence, denying them viable alternatives, and then condemning them for their inability to flourish within constraints they never chose.